NCAA selection committee

*** An early version of my column for Monday’s edition of the Mercury News and other Bay Area News Group publications …

The NCAA tournament selection committee has often been accused of relying too heavily on data and not giving enough weight to how teams look on the court – the so-called eye test.

When assessing UCLA’s prospects for the 2015 tournament, the committee did the reverse. It credited the Bruins for looking respectable down the stretch while completely ignoring four months of evidence indicating UCLA wasn’t worthy of an at-large bid.

“We felt like they were gaining steam,’’ selection committee chairman Scott Barnes said of the Bruins. “I think the eye test was a plus in putting them in the field.’’

Because UCLA made it, and made it fairly easily – the 11th-seeded Bruins were not one of the last four at-large teams – the committee has a perception problem: UCLA was included because of its tradition and ability to juice television ratings.

Let’s start with the same selection reminders that occupied this space last year:

1. No team is evaluated in a vacuum; everything is relative.

For every available at-large berth, as well as seeds 1 through 68, the committee examines how Team W compares to Teams X, Y and Z based on a bevy of data points.

The RPI is an important tool, but there are others, including quality wins, strength of schedule, bad losses and record against teams in the tournament.

2. Conference affiliation is not part of the discussion in the committee room. A team’s record in league play and its position in league standings mean nothing. Zippo.

Conference RPI is also meaningless.

Now, here’s an updated version of material I wrote for Sunday’s Mercury News …

*** The Local Landscape

Barring a stunning turn of events, the Bay Area men will be shut out of the NCAAs for the second time in the past four years. Prior to that, the region sent at least one team into March Madness for 20 consecutive seasons.

Not-so-random thoughts on the conference tournament before we get to the Zags specifically …

1. WCC fans should keep an eye on the Missouri Valley tourney, which begins Thursday.

If Wichita State doesn’t earn the automatic berth, the Shockers will eat up an at-large bid that would otherwise have gone to a bubble team … such as Gonzaga, perhaps.

2. The lack of a dominant team and the presence of quality depth creates the possibility that chaos could reign at the Orleans Arena.

(And for those not in attendance, it will be watchable chaos: The final, both semifinals and two quarterfinals will be on ESPN/ESPN2 — a nice exposure tripleheader for the conference.)

3. Adding to the uncertainty: the new format.

There are no double byes, and the opening round winners (Thursday) will have a day off before the quarterfinals (Saturday) … and the quarterfinal winners will have a day off before the semifinals (Monday).

You could argue that playing in Thursday’s opening round gives the survivors an advantage over their quarterfinal opponent:

They would have worked through tourney jitters and gotten comfortable with the environment but won’t be facing the physical demands of playing back-to-back.

Now, about the Zags …

I’ve heard and read much speculation about Gonzaga’s prospects for an at-large berth if the Bulldogs lose in Las Vegas.

Indisputable: They aren’t as good as they have been and don’t have as air-tight a resume as in most of the past 8-10 years.

But I’m not sure they are smack on the bubble. either.

No team is evaluated on an absolute basis — the selection process is relative. Gonzaga’s profile will be compared/contrasted with those of 16-20-24 other teams.

My reading of the relevant material — specifically, the NCAA’s nitty-gritty info and the team sheets — indicates the Zags have a strong case for inclusion.

No single data point ever determines whether team X makes the field, and every committee member has a personal preference. But if you want to drill down to the core … to the heart of the discussion in the committee room next week … it’s this (based on my years of observing the process):

The committee wants at-large teams that have performed well under circumstances that best approximate March Madness.

In other words, it wants teams that have performed well against top-tier competition away from home, because that’s the environment faced in the NCAAs.

In my mind, the best measure is a team’s record on the road/neutral court against top-50 or top-100 opponents.

Teams with winning records away from home against top-50 opponents are the high seeds, the Nos. 1-4.

For the rest of the at-large pool … because of small sample size or dearth of wins against top-50 opponents … it’s often about record away from home against top-100 foes.

In that situation, the Zags are 4-4.

That might not seem impressive, but it compares favorably with teams that are viewed as likely/potential AL entries (records entering this week):

Again: There are many tools used to determine the at-large pool, each committee member brings a different perspective/preference, and I have taken and narrow approach.

And yes: Several teams mentioned above have more success against top-50 opponents than Gonzaga. I’m not suggesting for a second that the Zags should be in ahead of Duke (although about those Blue Devils: Yikes!).

But based on how they have played against quality opponents away from home, the Zags appear to be on solid, not shaky, ground.

My belief is that it would be in the WCC’s best interest for Gonzaga to reach the finals and lose, thereby creating the best chance to receive multiple bids.

We’re 2.5 weeks from Selection Sunday, and the situation looks reasonably bright for the Pac-12: Although the conference is light on top-four seed, it has a half-dozen teams in contention for bids.

That stems largely from a non-conference season in which the league avoided an alarming number of bad losses and collected enough quality wins (Colorado over Kansas, Oregon and Utah over BYU, Stanford over UConn, Arizona over everybody) to prop up its overall power rating.

As a result, once the cannibalism of conference play set in, Pac-12 teams were beating — and losing to — other quality teams (as measured by the RPI).

A few points are essential to understanding the selection process, and I’ll be sure to remind readers of the following in the days leading up to Selection Sunday:

*** The at-large teams are voted into the field of 68 on a relative basis: How does Team A compare to Teams B, C, D, etc.

Arizona State, for instance, will be compared to Baylor, Kansas State and numerous other teams from across the country.

Nobody is evaluated in a vacuum, which makes it difficult, if not impossible, to know for certain which bubble teams are in … or out.

Three years ago, HP Pavilion played host to a group of eight teams that had little zero connection to San Jose specifically or the Bay Area generally. That could very well be the case again next week when HP plays host to second- and third-round games.

The overriding factor in determining which teams are sent to HP — and more significantly: which teams are not — is the NCAA Tournament selection committee’s desire to protect (reward) the top-four seeds in each region.

It does this by placing them at sites as close to their campus as possible.

That means that Gonzaga, which is no worse than a No. 2 seed, will play in Salt Lake City because it’s closer to Spokane than San Jose is.